About a year ago I commented on the proposed changes to the LVT’s practice and procedure – which are about to come into effect from 1st July 2013. There has been relative silence from the professionals about these changes – which in effect seek to harmonise the tribunal system so that all tribunals have a common format and set of procedural guidance and rules.

Siobhan McGrath the president of the London LVT spoke at the LEASE conference last week on 21st May 2013 and gave in overview a positive view of the likely changes. I expect the biggest difference – apart from the fact that the tribunal chairs will now become judges of the tribunal, is the fact that the tribunal’s powers to award costs will now be extended – instead of being limited to £500 as is currently the case where there is ‘poor’ behaviour in front of the tribunal. How this is likely to affect cases in practice remains to be seen – however there has been relatively little comment – which I expect means that the changes will come in ‘quietly’ and then we will see a raft of comments from practitioners as they and the public get to grips with the new system.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/moj/advisory-groups/tribunal-procedure-commit…

There is likely to be some interest in the consultation document mentioned above about the proposed changes to the procedural rules that will affect the LVT and the UT as part of the harmonisation of tribunals under the TCEA 2007. ALEP will be co-ordinating a response on behalf of its members and the consultation closes on 6th September 2012.

There is significant regional variation in relation to tribunal practices and practitioners may welcome some harmonisation – although it will be interesting to see what people’s views are. In terms of current practice the London LVT procedure is in general ‘user friendly’ and efficient, in my view. Whilst there are rumblings about strike out and costs / wasted costs orders from time to time from members of the LVT user group, the current service is efficient and has good dialogue with its users. It would be a shame if some of this is lost as part of a desire to standardise across the board. I look forward to hearing people’s views on these proposed changes.

Mark Chick

17.7.2012

Have you been served?

Whether a notice has been validly served (or not) is often a contentious question and the answer is not always as straightforward as you might think.

The recent case of Calladine Smith v Saveorder Limited [2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch) [2012] L.& T.R. 3 shows us why.

In Saveorder, the tenant served notice claiming an extended lease in accordance with the provisions of Section 42 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (‘the 1993 Act’). The landlords’ solicitors prepared a counter notice under Section 45, but purported to serve the counter notice by post.

As a matter of law, Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that where a document is to be served by post then unless the contrary can be proved, service will be deemed to be effective if it can be shown that a properly addressed and pre-paid letter containing the document has been posted. Service will be deemed to happen when the document would be delivered in the ordinary course of the post.

However, in Saveorder, as a matter of fact the judge at first instance had made a determination of fact on the evidence presented that the counter notice had not been received.

The County Court had held that the landlord’s service of the counter notice had been effective, notwithstanding the fact that it had not been received, the applicable test in Section 7 of the Interpretation Act being made out. However, Section 7 states that service by post in the manner stated will be effective, ‘unless the contrary is proved.’

The High Court on appeal from the County Court held that this qualification is not limited to the determination of the time at which service is deemed to have happened, but rather extends more widely to cover the full facts surrounding the manner in which service is effected. After a detailed consideration of the authorities, the Court held that service had not been valid, where there had been a finding of fact to the effect that the notice had not been received.

Comment

Saveorder is a common sense decision and provides (without too much irony) clarity on the interpretation of Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

If it can be established as a matter of evidence that a notice has not been received, it is unlikely that a court will find that service has been valid.

The case is a salutary lesson in confirming receipt of any given notice at its destination, so as to avoid a dispute on the facts later on.

Mark Chick

7 June 2012

This note (being very general in its nature) is not a complete statement of the law in this area.  It is therefore not a substitute for legal advice from a suitably qualified professional and should not be relied upon as such. No liability can therefore be accepted for any actions based on reliance upon it.

If you require legal advice please visit www.bishopandsewell.co.uk

Conference Photos – ALEP Autumn Conference – 18th October 2011 – ‘Taking no notice’: